Allowed

Intec Capital Ltd. v. A.V Industries & Ors.

Delhi HC27 Feb 2024ARB.P./386/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this petition under S. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner sought appointment of a sole arbitrator pursuant to the loan agreement. The court noted the respondent had no objection to the appointment. The petition was allowed and a retired High Court Judge was appointed as the sole arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Justice Pankaj Jaiswal (Retd.) as Sole Arbitrator; parties to approach the Arbitrator within two weeks.

Intec Capital Ltd. Vs A.V Industries & Ors. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 386/2023

¶4

INTEC CAPITAL LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Akarsh Sharma, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

A.V INDUSTRIES & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Harish Katyal and Ms Aditi Todaria, Advs.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R

¶9

% 27.02.2024

¶10

This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in accordance with Clause 19 of the loan agreement dated 28.02.2015. The arbitration clause reads as under:

¶11

“19. ARBITRATION

¶12

19.1 The Parties agree that, in the event of any dispute or differences or disagreement or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement including any dispute as to validity, interpretation, breach of any provision of the Agreement, any Transaction Document, or with respect to any amount outstanding (“Dispute”), shall be referred to a sole arbitrator appointed by INTEC. Such arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and/or any amendment or re-enactment thereof by a sole arbitrator to be appointed by INTEC.

¶13

19.2 The Parties expressly agree, that in any circumstance the

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/03/2024 at 10:59:26

¶16

appointment of sole arbitrator shall be done by INTEC and INTEC shall always deemed to be the sole Party for securing the appointment of the sole arbitrator, without recourse to any other alternative mode of appointment.

¶17

19.3 The seat of the sole arbitrator shall be New Delhi and the arbitration shall be conducted in English language.

¶18

19.4 The arbitrator so appointed herein above, shall also be entitled to pass an award on the Hypothecated Asset and also on any other securities furnished by or on behalf of the Borrower/CoBorrower/Guarantor.

¶19

19.5 The Costs of the arbitration proceedings shall be determined by the arbitrator. The award of the arbitrator shall be binding on the parties and shall be binding on the parties on the parties and shall be enforceable in any competent court.”

¶20

The petitioner issued a loan recall notice dated 05.09.2015 calling upon the respondent to pay the entire outstanding loan amount alongwith interest.

¶21

Since the respondent did not pay the same, the petitioner invoked the Arbitration Clause vide Legal Notice dated 21.09.2015 under section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Mr. M. S. Sabharwal was appointed as the Ld. Sole Arbitrator.

¶22

An ex-parte Award was passed by the Arbitrator dated 18.01.2016. The same was set aside on 30.11.2022 by the learned ADJ, South East District, Saket Court. Hence, the present petition.

¶23

Mr Katyal, learned counsel appears for respondent No.1, i.e the loanee, and respondent Nos. 2 to 4, i.e the guarantors of the loan. The

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/03/2024 at 10:59:26

¶26

Arbitration clause is not in dispute and Mr Katyal does not have any objections to the appointment of an Arbitrator.

¶27

For the said reasons, the petition is allowed. Since the parties are still having disputes between them, the following directions are issued:-

¶28

i) Justice Pankaj Jaiswal (Retd. Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court and Allahabad High Court) (Mob. No. 9425155450) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶29

ii) The arbitration will be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi hereinafter, referred to as the ‘DIAC’). The remuneration of the learned Arbitrator shall be in terms of the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶30

iii) The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Act prior to entering into the reference.

¶31

iv) It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including as to the arbitrability of any of the claim, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims on merits of the dispute of either of the parties, are left open for adjudication by the learned arbitrator.

¶32

v) The parties shall approach the learned Arbitrator within two weeks from today.

¶33

vi) The party which succeeds in the Arbitration Proceedings will also be entitled to Cost including Arbitrator’s fee.

¶34

The petition is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶35

JASMEET SINGH, J FEBRUARY 27, 2024/ sr Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶36

This is a digitally signed order.

¶37

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/03/2024 at 10:59:26

Intec Capital Ltd. v. A.V Industries & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Intec Capital Ltd. v. A.V Industries & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bl Mehta Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Shiv Kumar & Ors. Vs Star Bus Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

M/S Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dilip Jain and Ors.

Srico Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Railside Warehouse Co. Ltd.

Dr Neeraj Bindal Vs Ambience Projects and Infrastructure Private Ltd.

Angle Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ms Capital Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.